Tamron 10-24mm and Questionable quality control

I've really been torn between the Tammy and Sigma super wides. Seems all the available reviews of the Tamron and its resulting mediocre scores were from early/pre production lenses in early '09 using other brand mounts.

Just wondering if this was due to QC issues early on, and later fixed before the Pentax versions started shipping late in '09/early '10???

I bought my Tammy in Dec 2010. No problems. I strongly considered both Sigma versions but I'd read too many reports of users returning 2-3-4 copies before getting a get one. I applied the same analysis as when I decided on a K20D: comparable bodies from other makers got more groans-moans-bitches-gripes from users. As kenafein says, whatever you buy, make sure you can return it without question.

No problems with mine -- I just haven't learned to "see" at 10 - 16mm yet.

Open thine eyes to the glories around thee! Or something like that. Learning to see: Stick the camera up to your face a lot. Or make a frame -- cut a piece of cardboard with a 6x9in / 16x24cm hole in it. Figure out which distances from your eyes provide FOV's in the 10-16mm range. Wander around with the frame in front of your face, so see those angles. Ignore the whispered comments. Have fun!

I own 3 Sigma lenses including the 10-20. No issues whatsoever at all. I know a few people the bought the Sigma 10-20 as well and none of them have had any problems either. As for quality and QC, I think Sigma lenses have the edge over Tamron.

As for quality and QC, I think Sigma lenses have the edge over Tamron.

And I've talked to pros who despise Sigma's QC. They say that Sigma beats Tamron on lens build but trails badly in QC. Of course for small samples YMMV. My Lil'Bigma 170-500 is just fine. My Tamrons are just fine. All is well. Life is beautiful.

thanks a lot guys!!!! after much research and and even more soul searching in what type of photographer I am/want to be, I realize that ultimate sharpness is not the cornerstone of my abilities, but color and light is. And the more I read, the Tamron seems to be a clear winner in both those categories.

I wonder, does anyone other than "pixel peepers" here on the web really care that one lens scores a couple points higher in resolution tests than another???

Just about everything I've read or heard on the subject suggests this: outside of professional paid shoots.........with exception to macro, and certain types of wildlife photography, rarely does one have a true need for an ultra-sharp lens with top level resolution figures.

It seems, due to marketing and various amounts of other reasons, certain people are never satisfied with, "99% good enough". There will always be a fringe of one percenters out there.